Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. George Harms Construction Co., Inc., 318 A.3d 643

Background

The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (Commission) is a bi-state agency created by an interstate compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania to manage certain bridges over the Delaware River, with Congressional approval.
In 2016, the Commission issued a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) as part of its bid documents for the Scudder Falls Bridge replacement project, requiring contractors and subcontractors to hire 75% of their workforce from specified local unions.
George Harms Construction Co., a New Jersey contractor bound to a different union (USW), challenged the PLA, arguing that its exclusion from the agreement precluded it from bidding on the project and violated competitive bidding laws.
The Commission sought a declaratory judgment affirming its authority to require PLAs; Harms counterclaimed, asserting statutory and constitutional violations, and sought injunctive relief.
The trial court held that the Commission was not bound by New Jersey’s competitive bidding laws and dismissed Harms’ claims; the Appellate Division reversed, finding the Commission lacked authority to require PLAs under the Compact, prompting review by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Commission have authority under the Compact to require use of a PLA in its public bidding process?	The Compact’s broad grants of authority, including contract powers, encompass the ability to require PLAs; text need not specifically mention PLAs.	The Compact must expressly grant the power to use PLAs or be supplemented by complementary/parallel laws of both states; mere general contract powers are insufficient.	Yes; the Compact’s language is broad enough to authorize use of PLAs, even if not expressly mentioned.
Should the "complementary or parallel law" test of Ballinger or the "express intent" test guide changes to bi-state agency powers under interstate compacts?	Ballinger does not apply when power comes from the compact’s text; Compact’s terms govern directly.	Ballinger requires similar laws in both states to supplement the compact’s powers; lack thereof bars authority for new provisions like PLAs.	Ballinger does not constrain the Commission here; the power to use PLAs is within the Compact’s plain text.
Do subsequent unapproved state amendments to compact statutes (aimed at imposing state public contract requirements) bind the Commission’s procurement practices?	Amendments weren’t approved by Congress and are not operative law; operative amendments only require public advertising and award to lowest responsible bidder, which was satisfied.	Amendments require adherence to both states’ substantive procurement laws, not just procedural bid steps.	Amendments are not binding without Congressional approval; even if operative, the bid process satisfied all requirements.
Should the absence of parallel state law treatment on PLAs bar the Commission’s ability to utilize them?	Lack of complementary/parallel law does not limit power granted under the Compact.	Without such laws, Commission lacks authority for PLAs.	No; the absence of parallel laws does not negate the Compact's broad grant of authority.

Key Cases Cited

Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614 (2013) (Interstate compacts are contracts interpreted by their express terms)
Ballinger v. Delaware River Port Authority, 172 N.J. 586 (2002) (Test for when state law can supplement a compact-created entity’s power)
Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (Bi-state agencies occupy a unique status in federalism; express compact terms govern functions)
Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981) (Approved compacts are federal law; interpretation is a federal question)